What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4822737 about?

The tribunal order states: Cheng Li must pay [The tenant/s] $954.53 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4822737?

Cleaning: $232.90 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $232.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Overpayment: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $286.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822737?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4822737 about?

The tribunal order states: Cheng Li must pay [The tenant/s] $954.53 immediately, calculated as shown in

How much money was awarded in case 4822737?

Cleaning: $232.90 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $232.90 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $400.00 awarded to tenant; Compensation: Rent Overpayment: $800.00 awarded to tenant; Filing Fee: $40.88 awarded to tenant; Lawns and Garden Work: $286.35 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4822737?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4822737?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/10764232-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

23 Findlay Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028 Tenancy Tribunal Case 4822737 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4822737 — net $954.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$232.90		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$286.35		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Rent overpayment		$800.00	Rent overpayment
Compensation: Failure to repair tap		$400.00	Failure to repair tap
Cleaning contribution received from tenants		$232.90	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement on 2 applications		$40.88	Filing fee reimbursement on 2 applications
Total award	$519.25	$1,473.78
Net award		$954.53
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$954.53

Both parties attended the hearing.

The tenants filed two applications seeking refund of their bond; refund of a rent overpayment; refund of cleaning costs paid; and compensation for breach of Healthy Homes Standards and maintenance obligations regarding heating, ventilation, and leaks.

The landlord filed a cross application for refund of the bond and compensation for cleaning, repainting mouldy walls and garden maintenance work.

The current fixed term tenancy commenced on 1 January 2023 and was to end on 31 December 2023. However, the parties agreed to end the tenancy on 20 December 2023. There were previous tenancies in which two of the current tenants were involved. They say they moved in on 5 November 2020 and their first fixed term tenancy started on 17 December 2020. Neither the landlord nor the tenants produced copies of the previous tenancy agreements. However, I find that the last tenancy commencing on 1 January 2023 was a new/renewed tenancy with two of the current tenants joining as tenants at that point.

I deal with the landlord’s claims against the bond first, as this was largely the subject of the tenants’ first application. Bond money belongs to tenants. Where a landlord has a claim against the bond, the onus is on the landlord to prove those claims. I then deal with the tenants’ claims concerning breaches of Healthy Homes Standards and maintenance obligations which they lodged after the landlord’s cross application. Burden of proof

Each party has the burden to prove their respective claims. The standard of proof required is the usual civil standard of “on the balance of probabilities.” Put another way, the applicant party must persuade me that what he or she says is more likely than not to be the case. I do not need to be completely certain, but I need to be more certain than not. In deciding any claim, I must consider all the evidence presented (including oral testimony). I must weigh this evidence to decide what is more likely and whether there is reasonable evidence to corroborate the claim.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

General cleaning

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).

The tenant's obligation to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy is not an absolute standard, and it does not mean that the premises will be immaculate, spotless, or commercially clean. It also does not mean that the premises will necessarily be ready for occupation by a new tenant, the owner, or ready for sale. It is to be expected that a landlord will spend some time (or pay someone else) on cleaning and maintenance work between tenancies. This is part of the business of being a landlord. The test as to whether premises are in a reasonably clean and tidy condition is an objective test, not to be determined based on the subjective opinion of either the landlord or the tenant. Also, a tenant should not be expected to keep the premises any cleaner or tidier than they were at the start of the tenancy.

The landlord claims that the tenants did not leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy and claims the following: a. interior cleaning costs of $465.75 (of which the tenants paid $232.90 as a gesture to settle the matter); b. interior re-painting of bathroom and laundry ceilings and wallpaper on the lounge walls to cover mould, costing $2,277.00; and c. gardening, lawns, and removal of green waste costs of $572.70.

Prior to the tenancy ending, the landlord completed an inspection on 4 November 2023, which was partly conducted to confirm the process on the move-out date and what the tenants would be expected to do to leave the premises reasonably clean and reasonably tidy. The landlord took photos at this inspection.

On 16 December, the landlord conducted a second inspection to give the tenants final cleaning instructions. The landlord also took some photos on this date. On the same day, landlord sent a text message to the tenants advising them about required cleaning which included cleaning the oven, fridge, kitchen drawers and cabinets, mould on windows and tree tidy up. On 19 December, the landlord sent a further text reminding the tenants about the points mentioned in his previous text about cleaning and gardening work.

On 21 December, the landlord completed an inspection after the tenants had moved out. The tenants sent the landlord a text message on 22 December asking “...how was yesterday’s inspection? Is there anything else we need to clean?” to which he replied saying “It’s very good....”. In a later text to the tenants on 8 January 2024, the landlord confirmed that he would sign the bond refund form the next day.

On or about 12 January 2024, the landlord telephoned the tenants advising them that he had to hire people to clean the interior because he alleged that they had not cleaned the house properly. He also mentioned that the gardens and lawns required further work and asked them to come and help but also mentioned that he had already hired people to do the work. The tenants advised that they could help on 14 th January but received no reply.

On or about 14 January, the landlord sent the tenants a bill for the interior cleaning. On 17 January, the landlord sent them an email demanding the full bond plus a further sum to cover interior and exterior cleaning and maintenance.

When questioned why he advised the tenants that the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy was good, when he now claims further work was required, the landlord said he thought it was generally fine and that the further cost of any required work might only be small so he should wear the cost. However, he says he discovered more issues after they moved out, which he says cost more to remedy than he thought.

The landlord relied on photos he says shows the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy. However, many of these photos were taken on 4 November and 16 December, before the tenancy ended. Some photos were screen shots taken from the tenants’ video recording on the last day of the tenancy, 20 December. The landlord also produced 2 photos of the exterior grounds taken on 21 December; 2 photos of the interior entrance and laundry taken on 4 January 2024 and some photos of the exterior grounds taken on 4, 12 and 13 January 2024.

The tenants drew to my attention that the premises were put on the market for sale on 18 January 2024, and they believe the landlord wanted to make the premises look good for sale. They claim he did work beyond what was required to make the premises reasonably clean and tidy and is trying to charge them for that work. They were also concerned that many photos produced by the landlord in support of his claims were taken before the tenancy ended and before the tenants carried out final cleaning and tidying of the premises. They relied on photos they took after cleaning and tidying work was completed dated 18 and 20 December and their end of tenancy video dated 20 December.

After carefully reviewing all the available evidence produced by both parties, including their oral and written submissions, I make the following findings. Interior cleaning

The landlord has no evidence of the condition of the interior prior to the tenancy commencing on 1 January 2023.

Photos taken by the landlord prior to 20 December 2023, cannot be relied upon to show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy after the tenants cleaned and tidied the premises.

The landlord produced an email from his cleaner dated 2 May 2024 detailing the specific areas cleaned on 12 January 2024, which was 23 days after the tenancy ended. Many of the areas mentioned are not supported by photos taken after the tenancy ended on 20 December. For example, there are no photos to show that the following were not reasonably clean and tidy: the oven, skirting boards, kitchen ceiling, windows and frames, light fittings, front and back doors.

Other areas the cleaner addressed, for which there are screen shots taken from the tenants’ video dated 20 December, are: some debris on the garage floor; mould/dirt on the lounge walls and in the laundry/entrance area on the walls. There are also earlier photos showing mould on the laundry ceiling, which the tenants acknowledged represented the state of the ceiling at the end of the tenancy.

The debris on the garage floor is minor and I consider it would not be reasonable to expect the garage to be pristine or much cleaner than it was given its purpose. Dirt on the laundry and entrance walls is also very minor. Therefore, I find that the landlord has not proved that the interior of the premises was not reasonably clean and tidy. However, I consider the claim about mould damage on the laundry ceiling and lounge walls separately. Exterior ground maintenance

The landlord produced photos of the gardens and lawns in 2019 when he purchased the property showing that the grounds contained lovely gardens and lawns that were well manicured on a very large section. He was unable to advise the precise date of the photos. However, there were no photos of the gardens taken before this tenancy started on 1 January 2023 and I find that the landlord cannot rely on the photos taken in 2019 as evidence of the state of the grounds when this tenancy started. The photos also predate the first tenancy agreement signed by two of the current tenants in December 2020, so cannot be relied on as evidence of the state of the grounds at that date either.

The landlord also says that he asked the tenants to do the lawns and gardens throughout the tenancy and they failed to do so. However, he did not make these requests in writing nor issue any 14-day notices to remedy. Therefore, there is no documentary evidence to support his claim.

The landlord claims that at the end of the tenancy, the tenants had not mown the lawns properly, particularly around trees and bushes, and they did not complete all the weeding required. They also did not dispose of lawn clippings and waste. He seeks further costs incurred for this work of $572.70.

The photos produced by the tenants of the exterior grounds show that they mowed the lawns, and they also trimmed some trees as advised by the landlord. However, they subsequently realised, and the landlord accepted, that they are not responsible for trimming and pruning trees and bushes. They can only be expected to do lawns and garden weeding. The tenants accept that they did not dispose of lawn clippings and waste from weeding and trimming trees. However, they emphasize that trimming trees was not their responsibility.

After carefully considering all the available evidence, I find that the tenants are responsible to contribute to the costs of disposing lawn clippings and weeds. I also find that there was one area of the garden at the front of the house which needed weeding as shown in the photos taken by the tenant after they tidied the grounds. However, I accept that they are not responsible for trying to mow areas underneath bushes and trees that are difficult to reach with a lawnmower and they are not responsible for trimming bushes and trees. On balance, I consider the tenants should contribute $286.35, being one half of the costs claimed by the landlord.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Where damage is proved and requires items to be replaced, I must consider betterment and depreciation. The landlord should be returned to the position they would have been in had the tenant not breached their obligations and should not be better or worse off. In calculating depreciation, I must take into account the age and condition of the items at the start of the tenancy and their likely useful lifespan. Mould damage

The landlord claims that mould has been caused by the tenants failing to ventilate the premises and it became so bad that it could not be removed by cleaning, and that is why it was painted over. In other words, the landlord claims that mould has damaged the premises and requires repainting. I query whether this is an appropriate remedy as opposed to more extensive work to remove the mould (removing the wallpaper and even re-gibbing) if it cannot be removed. However, that is what the landlord chose to do. He also said that he asked the tenants to address the mould several times during the tenancy. However, he did put his requests in writing and nor did he serve them with any 14-day notices to remedy. So, there is no documentary evidence to corroborate his claim.

The tenants claim that mould on the laundry ceiling and lounge walls resulted from lack of an extractor fan in the small bathroom next to the laundry, lack of opening windows in the lounge, heating that did not work and leaks at the premises. However, as detailed later in this decision, I find that those claims are not proved to the extent that I would find that they caused the mould damage in the laundry and lounge, nor that the landlord is solely responsible for the mould.

The landlord provided evidence that the small bathroom was assessed as exempt from an extractor fan because it would not be reasonably practical to install a fan. While I query whether an exemption is justified, that is the advice the landlord received and relied on. He also noted that the small bathroom had an openable window and the door from the bathroom to the laundry could be closed which would prevent moisture and condensation spreading into the laundry. However, the lack of a fan may well have contributed to condensation and dampness in the area.

The tenants were unable to prove that the house breached other ventilation and heating requirements that might contribute to a damp environment (see the following paragraphs 46-54). The tenants say they didn’t use the heater because it didn’t work but there is no evidence that they reported this problem to the landlord. I am also not satisfied that various leaks complained of by the tenants would have contributed to mould in the laundry and lounge (see the following paragraphs 55-65). There was evidence that the tenants had placed a couch against the lounge wall where mould was found. The window on that lounge wall could be opened, but there were trees and bushes close to the window that might block sunlight and impede ventilation. It is possible that placement of the couch on the wall and not using the heater may’ve contributed to mould on the lounge walls.

On balance, I consider that mould on the laundry ceiling was likely from a combination of no extractor fan and failing to keep the bathroom door closed. In other words, it has resulted both because of the tenants’ actions but also as an incidence of ventilation limitations, which is a landlord responsibility.

I find that mould in the lounge is likely from placement of a couch hard up against the wall, failing to use the heater (and not following up with the landlord to have it repaired if it was not working) and failing to ventilate. The tenant is likely responsible for the mould on the lounge walls.

The landlord seeks the costs of repainting the lounge. However, the landlord was not able to prove when the lounge wallpaper was hung. The opinion of the landlord’s painter, that the wallpaper was 5 years old, is a guess. The landlord purchased this property in 2019 and believes that the sales agent advised that the premises had been refurbished just prior. However, there is no evidence to support that claim. In the absence of proof and, bearing in mind that depreciation guidelines estimate the life of wallpaper to be 5-12 years, I consider any repainting costs must be fully depreciated. However, to recognise that the tenants are likely responsible for mould on the lounge walls, and they would not have required painting otherwise, an award of 10-15% of the repainting costs is justified. The tenants already paid $232.90 as a contribution towards interior cleaning, and I consider that sum is an appropriate amount to award the landlord. Has the landlord failed to comply with maintenance and Healthy Homes

Standards?

Under section 45 RTA, the landlord has various obligations as follows: a. Under s45(1)(b) to provide and maintain the premises in a reasonable state of repair; b. Under s45(1) (bb) to comply with the Residential Tenancies (Healthy Homes Standards) 2019 (HHS), which relate to insulation, heating, ventilation, draught-stopping, moisture ingress and drainage.

Compliance dates for the HHS vary depending on the tenancy type. If the tenancy commenced between 1 July 2021 and before 28 August 2022, the rental must comply within 90 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy. If the tenancy commenced between 28 August 2022 but before 3 March 2025, the rental must comply within 120 days of the commencement of any new or renewed tenancy.

While the tenants suggested that the landlord failed to comply with HHS obligations in relation to previous tenancies at the premises, the only agreement provided in evidence in which all four of the current tenants was involved was the new/renewed tenancy starting on 1 January 2023. Therefore, I cannot determine whether there was any failure to comply under a previous tenancy. For the tenancy starting on 1 January 2023, the HHS compliance date was 30 April 2023.

The tenants claim that mould at the premises was caused by structural and maintenance failures by the landlord and they raised the following specific issues for which they seek compensation: a. Dampness caused by poor ventilation at the premises; b. Lack of a working heater; c. Kitchen window leak and water ingress affecting electrical wiring. d. Water tap leak.

I deal with each of the issues in turn. Ventilation

The ventilation standard sets out minimum expectations around windows and doors, and in particular the area of doors and windows that are openable. The standard also requires that each kitchen and bathroom have extractor fans installed with a minimum defined extraction capacity. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenants claim that the small bathroom did not have an extractor fan and many windows throughout the house could not be opened fully and were obstructed by trees.

The landlord produced in evidence an HHS assessment completed on 6 October 2021 (“the HHS report”). The HHS report found that both the small and main bathrooms did not have extractor fans, and they should be installed. The report otherwise concluded that the premises met the ventilation standard in respect of the openable area of windows and doors.

An extractor fan was installed in the main bathroom towards the end of 2021. However, the landlord provided evidence that the registered electrician he instructed to install fans in the bathrooms assessed that it was not reasonably practicable to install a fan in the small bathroom. Therefore, it was exempt from that requirement.

In summary, the tenants’ claims that the premises did not comply with ventilation standards is not proved and must be dismissed. Heating

The heating standard requires landlords to provide one or more ‘qualifying heaters’, with a capacity to heat the room to a required level. The heating standard defines what a qualifying heater would be and confirms that certain types of heaters are unacceptable heaters for the purpose of the HHS. The HHS does provide exemptions in specific circumstances.

The tenants claim that the premises did not have a working heater in the lounge. When they turned it on it made a strange noise. When they asked the landlord to check it, he advised them not to use it and to buy another heater. As a result, they did not use the heater. However, the tenants were unable to provide documentary evidence that they asked the landlord to check the heater.

The landlord denies the claim and does not recall the tenants asking him to check the heater. The HHS report confirms that the heater complied with HHS.

The tenants are not able to prove that the heating did not comply with HHS, nor that it was not working, nor that they asked the landlord to fix it. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed. Leaks

The tenants complain about various leaks at the premises which the landlord failed to fix. It is well settled that, the landlord’s obligation under section 45 is to investigate and repair a defect brought to their attention within a timeframe which is reasonable in the circumstances, and as to what that time is, depends on the gravity of the problem but also on the objective attempts made by the landlord to investigate, and put right, whatever the problem might be. Furthermore, a tenant has a statutory duty to advise of any defects under section 40(1)(d). Therefore, a tenant should promptly notify a landlord of any defects and a landlord should be given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the defect before being liable for any failure to do so. Kitchen window leak

The tenants complain that since December 2020 there has been a persistent leak from a crack in the exterior concrete wall above the kitchen window. When it rained, water came into the kitchen creating a damp environment. The tenants claim that despite their requests, the landlord failed to repair it before the tenancy ended in December 2023. They produced a text advising the landlord of the leak on 23 December 2020 to which he replied that he would investigate. The tenants say that the landlord told them that he could not fix the leak because the whole window would have to come out. They also produced a message from their tenants’ group chat on 12 October 2021 complaining about water leaking through the kitchen window. However, they did not have any documentary evidence to show that they notified the landlord of further leaking after the initial message sent in December 2020.

The landlord acknowledges that the tenants advised him about the kitchen window leaking in heavy rain but denies there is a crack in the exterior wall. He says that he took a builder to the house to test it with a hose. The builder could not determine the problem exactly but resealed the window flashings with silicon. After this, he says that the tenants did not tell him that the leak continued. He also produced evidence of a building report completed on 12 January 2024, shortly after the tenancy ended, which determined that moisture readings taken at the premises were at acceptable levels. The evidence produced does not disclose which areas were tested.

I find on the evidence that the tenants have not proved that they notified the landlord that the kitchen window continued to leak after the landlord looked at the issue and the Plumber resealed the window flashings. The tenants maintained that the re-sealing work wasn’t done until late 2023, but there is no evidence to establish when it was done. There is also no evidence that they advised the landlord of a persistent leak and nor did they issue a 14-day notice to remedy. In the absence of evidence that they notified the landlord of the problem, he cannot be held liable for failing to fix it. There is also no evidence of a leak, such as photos or videos of leaks when they occurred. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed. Leaks affecting electrical wiring

The tenants complain that the shower handle caused an electric shock due to water ingress into the electrical system. They say the electrician discovered water in the main wires because of leaks within the walls. The date of reporting this to the landlord is uncertain, although they presented evidence of the electrician fixing the exterior alarm at the premises which was faulty because of this problem, dated 17 March 2023.

The landlord acknowledges that the tenants sent him a text late one night advising that there was a problem with the lights at the house. He instructed an electrician who visited the next day and found moisture in the switchboard and suggested that it was an issue with the main power cable connected to the house from the street. After further checks, Wellington Electricity disconnected the main cable, carried out repairs and fixed the problem. The landlord understands that over time the casing around the cable deteriorated and water penetrated the cable which was connected to the house and caused the power to cut out.

I accept that the problem with water leaking through the power cable was fixed promptly and there is no other evidence of leaks within the walls of the premises or any subsequent problems with the electrical wiring at the house, nor of the tenants reporting any ongoing problems. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed. Tap leak

The tenants advised the landlord on 28 June 2022 of a leaking cold water tap in the upstairs bathroom. The landlord visited to view the problem and took a video which he sent to his plumber. He advised the tenants that the Plumber thought the leak was very slow and since it was the cold water tap, it would not incur extra electricity costs or make a noise. The landlord said “..let’s not rush to fix it.” The tenants replied immediately advising that the dripping tap did make a noise which was disturbing, but nothing further happened. On 27 March 2023, the tenants again complained noting that the tap leak was getting worse. The landlord then arranged for it to be fixed.

The landlord acknowledges the dripping cold water tap in the upstairs bathroom. He says it was not a major issue and he eventually got it fixed after changing Plumbers.

While the cold water tap leak may not have been a major problem, it nevertheless was a nuisance with the tenants claiming it made a dripping noise which disturbed the tenants with bedrooms upstairs and it got worse overtime. I find that the landlord failed to fix the leak within a reasonable time frame which is a breach of his obligations. I consider that the tenants are entitled to some compensation for the leak. I award $450 which I consider reasonable in the circumstances for the delay of approximately 9 months.

Overall, I am not satisfied that the claims about leaks in the kitchen window, the main power cable problem, and the leaking cold water tap upstairs contributed to the mould damage found in the downstairs laundry and lounge with both those areas being some distance away. Summary

Overall, the tenants have substantially succeeded with their claims, compared with the landlord, and they are entitled to suppression of their names and identifying details as requested. They are also entitled to reimbursement of the two filing fees paid on their applications.

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4822737 — net $954.53 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Tenant	Reason
Cleaning	$232.90		Cleaning
Lawns and Garden work	$286.35		Lawns and Garden work
Compensation: Rent overpayment		$800.00	Rent overpayment
Compensation: Failure to repair tap		$400.00	Failure to repair tap
Cleaning contribution received from tenants		$232.90	Cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement on 2 applications		$40.88	Filing fee reimbursement on 2 applications
Total award	$519.25	$1,473.78
Net award		$954.53
Bond		$2,720.00
Total payable by Landlord to Tenant		$954.53

Both parties attended the hearing.

The landlord filed a cross application for refund of the bond and compensation for cleaning, repainting mouldy walls and garden maintenance work.

In the decision that follows I may not have referred to all the oral testimony and other evidence presented, but the parties should know it has been considered.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

General cleaning

After carefully reviewing all the available evidence produced by both parties, including their oral and written submissions, I make the following findings. Interior cleaning

The landlord has no evidence of the condition of the interior prior to the tenancy commencing on 1 January 2023.

Photos taken by the landlord prior to 20 December 2023, cannot be relied upon to show the condition of the premises at the end of the tenancy after the tenants cleaned and tidied the premises.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Standards?

I deal with each of the issues in turn. Ventilation

The tenants claim that the small bathroom did not have an extractor fan and many windows throughout the house could not be opened fully and were obstructed by trees.

In summary, the tenants’ claims that the premises did not comply with ventilation standards is not proved and must be dismissed. Heating

The landlord denies the claim and does not recall the tenants asking him to check the heater. The HHS report confirms that the heater complied with HHS.

The tenants are not able to prove that the heating did not comply with HHS, nor that it was not working, nor that they asked the landlord to fix it. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed. Leaks

The landlord acknowledges the dripping cold water tap in the upstairs bathroom. He says it was not a major issue and he eventually got it fixed after changing Plumbers.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822737 — Property damage at 23 Findlay Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4822737 — Property damage at 23 Findlay Street, Tawa, Wellington 5028

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Standards?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions